An ad currently running on the New York Times website:

Drone footage that shows Greenland melting away. Long narratives about the plight of climate refugees, from Louisiana to Bolivia and beyond. A series on the California drought. Color-coded maps that show how hot it could be in 2060.

The New York Times is a leader in covering climate change. Now The Times is ramping up its coverage to make the most important story in the world even more relevant, urgent and accessible to a huge audience around the globe. We are looking for an editor to lead this dynamic new group. We want someone with an entrepreneurial streak who is obsessed with finding new ways to connect with readers and new ways to tell this vital story.

The coverage should encompass: the science of climate change; the politics of climate debates; the technological race to find solutions; the economic consequences of climate change; and profiles of fascinating characters enmeshed in the issues. The coverage should include journalism in a variety of formats: video, photography, newsletters, features, podcasts, conferences and more. The unit should make strategic decisions about which forms are top priorities and which are not.

The climate editor will collaborate with many others throughout the newsroom, but will operate apart from the current department structure, with no print obligations. (The Times is also searching for editors to lead similar teams exploring education and gender.)

This is, of course, smoking gun evidence of a political agenda, bias, and the intent of the Times to warp policy and public opinion according to what it has already determined is “the most important story in the world.”  Facts are supposed to dictate which stories are perceived as more important than others, not individual tactics that make an issue or story appear to be “even more relevant” and “urgent.” And what is a news organization doing looking for “strategy” ? Strategy for what? The only strategy news organizations adopt, outside of business strategy, is called “indoctrination,” a strategy of persuasion. Ethical journalism requires no strategy; the New York Times ethics code mentions no “strategies.” Strategies are in the realm of advocacy and politics. The code does demand that the Times protect its neutrality at all times and in every thing it does. How does openly seeking an issue advocate to promote what the Times, in its arrogant and politically slanted wisdom and bias, has decided is “the most important story in the world” meet those standards of ethical journalism?

It doesn’t, of course. The code, like so many ethics codes in government and the private sector, is a public relations document, designed to deceive and promote unwarranted trust.